Archive for November, 2014

Conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific belief systems, and urban legends are fascinating in that they provide a window into culture and the human psyche. Essentially these are stories that are disconnected from reality, and therefore represent common narratives, beliefs, and fears in the culture.

I recently came across a conspiracy theory I had not heard of before, the Primeval Code, popularized in 2007 by a Swiss journalist, Luc Bürgin. Here’s the story:

Dr. Guido Ebner and Heinz Schürch, scientists working at the time for the pharmaceutical company, Ciba, discovered that if you expose seeds to an electrostatic field their ancient DNA will be awakened. Corn, wheat, even salmon will revert to a more primitive form, as if remembering their prior evolutionary states.

The term “valley of death” is a colorful (and biblical) reference to the difficulty of bringing scientific advances to the market. Researchers make a discovery in the lab that has a potential practical application. They then create a start up company to translate their discovery into a marketable product or service. The valley of death is the gulf between the lab and a profitable product, a desert that turns out to be too long for many, resulting in funding drying up before the market is reached.

As someone who is interested in science and technology, I have witnessed the valley of death many times from the sidelines. Often, when a scientist makes an interesting discovery, a science journalist reporting on the discovery feels obliged to connect the advance to some practical application. The more this application resembles technology from popular science fiction the better.

I enjoy speculating about future applications as much as anyone, but this practice can become formulaic and mindless. Every discovery about a virus will cure the common cold, every advance in understanding the machinery of cells will cure cancer, and every material science advance will give us hover cars or invisibility cloaks.

Another pattern that has emerged is the “5-10 years” claim, which is how long it will always take for the advance being reported to be translated to the marketplace. Often the scientists themselves are actively involved in the hype and overly optimistic predictions. Someone cynical might interpret “5-10 years” as “one more funding cycle.”